Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
how culture drives behavior
how culture drives behavior
similarities non-human primates and humans
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: how culture drives behavior
Brettell and Sargent open their book Gender in Cross Cultural Perspectives with a question: What is the role of biology in human behaviour (Brettell and Sargent, 2009, 1). Ward and Edelstein approach this question using cross-species analysis. They compare chimpanzee biology and behaviour to humans. There are four reasons that Ward uses comparisons to chimpanzees. First, because chimpanzees represent our closest genetic relative and second, the social activities and behaviours may be reflective of human ancestors. Third, cross-species analysis is the best way to overcome cultural biases (Ward and Edelstien , 2009, 101). Finally, there is extensive and scientifically recognized body of work on the relationship between biology and behaviour.
Several of the authors also use cross-species analysis and studies to compare humans to animal models of behaviour. When using biological models to explain human behaviour, there is the fear of the justification of sexism (Zuk, 2009, 7). Stereotypes often arise from the animal kingdom (Zuk, 2009, 7).This can pose a problem for accepting biology as an explanation for gender in modern humans. Zuk counters this belief, promoting an understanding of the biology of human sexual behaviour through an examination of animal models (Zuk, 2009, 8). Ehrenberg presents primate models to show the lack of difference biologically between males and females (Zuk, 2009, 17). Ward also uses primate models, specifically chimpanzees and baboons, to illustrate the similarities between humans and animals (Ward and Edelstien , 2009, 101).
Zuk does warn against attempting to use animal models as a single model for the origin of sex roles as the animal kingdom represents a wide variety of sexual behaviours including int...
... middle of paper ...
...roline B., and Carolyn F. Sargent, eds. 2009. Gender in Cross-cultural Perspective, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Ehrenberg, Margaret. 2009. ``The Role of Women In Human Evolution``. In Gender in Cross-cultural Perspective, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Martin, Emily. 1991. ``The egg and the sperm: how science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male-female roles``.
Peach, Lucinda J. 2009. ``Gender and War: Are Women Tough Enough for Military Combat``. In Gender in Cross-cultural Perspective, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, pp. 21-32.
Zuk, Marlene. 2009. ``Animal Models and Gender``. In Gender in Cross-cultural Perspective, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Ward, Martha and Monica Edelstein. 2009. A World Full of Women, 5th ed. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
This article, titled Common Ground, written by Barbara Smuts, points out the main differences between humans and apes, such as our upright stance, large brains, and capacity for spoken language and abstract reasoning. However, the main point of this article is to emphasize the many similarities that apes share with us. Smuts goes into great detail about how human social and emotional tendencies are very reflective in the family of apes.
As our neighboring living families, chimpanzees as well as bonobos have been extensively used as prototypes of the behavior of early hominids. However, In modern years, as statistics on the social behaviors or conduct and ecosystem of bonobos has evidently come to light, a lot of interspecific assessments have been done. Chimpanzees have been described in terms of their intercommunity struggle, meat eating, infanticide, anthropogy, male position-striving, and supremacy over females. Bonobos, for the meantime, have been depicted as the ‘‘creator of love, but not a war’’ ape, categorized by female power-sharing, a deficiency of hostility between either characters or groups, expounded sexual behavior that happens without the restraint of a thin window of fruitfulness, and the usage of sex for communicative determinations. This paper evaluates the indication for this contrast and reflects the reasons that distinct portrayals of the two great apes have advanced.
To begin, I think it is important to analyze the difference between “sex” and “gender”. Up until researching for this paper, I though that the two terms were interchangeable in meaning, rather, they are separate ideas that are connected. According to Mary K. Whelan, a Doctor of Anthropology focusing on gender studies, sex and gender are different. She states, “Western conflation of sex and gender can lead to the impression that biology, and not culture, is responsible for defining gender roles. This is clearly not the case.”. She continues with, “Gender, like kinship, does have a biological referent, but beyond a universal recognition of male and female "packages," different cultures have chosen to associate very different behaviors, interactions, and statuses with men and women. Gender categories are arbitrary constructions of culture, and consequently, gender-appropriate behaviors vary widely from culture to culture.” (23). Gender roles are completely defined by the culture each person lives in. While some may think that another culture is sexist, or dem...
There are many different facets to the nature versus nurture argument that has been going on for decades. One of these, the influence of nature and nurture on gender roles and behaviors, is argued well by both Deborah Blum and Aaron Devor, both of whom believe that society plays a large role in determining gender. I, however, have a tendency to agree with Blum that biology and society both share responsibility for these behaviors. The real question is not whether gender expression is a result of nature or nurture, but how much of a role each of these plays.
French, Marilyn. “Gender Roles.” One World, Many Cultures. Ed. Stuart Hirschberg. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1995. 143-152.
In “The Gender Blur: Where Does Biology End and Society Take Over?” Deborah Blum states that “gender roles of our culture reflect an underlying biology” (Blum 679). Maasik and Solomon argue that gender codes and behavior “are not the result of some sort of natural or biological destiny, but are instead politically motivated cultural constructions,” (620) raising the question whether gender behavior begins in culture or genetics. Although one may argue that gender roles begin in either nature or nurture, many believe that both culture and biology have an influence on the behavior.
The gender binary of Western culture dichotomizes disgendered females and males, categorizing women and men as opposing beings and excluding all other people. Former professor of Gender Studies Walter Lee Williams argues that gender binarism “ignores the great diversity of human existence,” (191) and is “an artifact of our society’s rigid sex-roles” (197). This social structure has proved detrimental to a plethora of people who fall outside the Western gender dichotomy. And while this gender-exclusive system is an unyielding element of present day North American culture, it only came to be upon European arrival to the Americas. As explained by Judith Lorber in her essay “Night to His Day: The Social Construction of Gender”, “gender is so pervasive in our society we assume it is bred into our genes” (356). Lorber goes on to explain that gender, like culture, is a human production that requires constant participation (358).
In his lecture, primatologist Robert Sapolsky explains the uniqueness of humans as well as our similarities to other primates. In doing so, he broke it down into six points of interest: aggression, theory of mind, the golden rule, empathy, pleasure in anticipation and gratification postponement, and lastly, culture. Professor Sapolsky approaches each point with interesting fact-based examples thus allowing me to gain insight on humans and other primates. Sapolsky’s knowledge of primates along with his scientific background allows him to make a clear argument that one cannot simply ignore.
“Boys will be boys, and girls will be girls”: few of our cultural mythologies seem as natural as this one. But in this exploration of the gender signals that traditionally tell what a “boy” or “girl” is supposed to look and act like, Aaron Devor shows how these signals are not “natural” at all but instead are cultural constructs. While the classic cues of masculinity—aggressive posture, self-confidence, a tough appearance—and the traditional signs of femininity—gentleness, passivity, strong nurturing instincts—are often considered “normal,” Devor explains that they are by no means biological or psychological necessities. Indeed, he suggests, they can be richly mixed and varied, or to paraphrase the old Kinks song “Lola,” “Boys can be girls and girls can be boys.” Devor is dean of social sciences at the University of Victoria and author of Gender Blending: Confronting the Limits of Duality (1989), from which this selection is excerpted, and FTM: Female-to-Male Transsexuals in Society (1997).
The socio-biological theory suggests gender appropriate behaviour has evolved to allow humanity to survive. There is supporting evidence in the composition of the human body; men have a larger lung capacity and greater physical strength than women in order to better equip them for protecting their family. In contrast, women are born with child-bearing capacities and are therefore biologically predetermined to care for their children, thus ensuring the human race survives.
Ruby, J. (2005, November 1). Women in Combat Roles: Is That the Question?. Off Our Backs,35, 36.
There is no doubt that men and women are influenced by biological factors. The question is are gender roles based on nature, nurture or both? When discussing human sexuality, drives and desires hormones play a substantial role in our behaviors. The physiological differences externally in males and females are obvious. For example, when aroused, males become erect, whereas females become lubricated instead of a clitoral erection. In the article, “Biological Aspects of Sexual Orientation and Identity” Milton Diamond Ph.D. claims “These differences obviously pertain to copulation, but many other mechanisms exist that are less related to coitus but very much related to sexual expression and childbearing. Muscle mass, body and skeletal articulation, enzyme and endocrine production, and other physiological features and reflexes are additional distinctions. The endocrine system of males is relatively tonic in operation, while the female system is basically cyclic during the reproductive years.” Some of these biological factors are thought to shape gender differences due to hormones and brain function. According to “Biological Theories of Gender” Saul McLeod claims that, “The biological approach suggests that there is no distinction between sex and gender, thus biological sex creates gendered behavior.” This theory
Martin, Emily. "The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles." Gender, Sex, and Sexuality. New York: Oxford University, 2009. 248-53. Print.
Kessler, Suzanne J, and McKenna. Gender: An Ethnomethodological Approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985.
Yieke, F. (2001). Gender as a Sociocultural Construct: A Sociolinguistic Perspective. Journal of Cultural Studies, 3(2), 333-347.